The Pactum: Legalism and Antinomianism

Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministry. Mike Abendroth here. Today, special message for you, legalism and antinomianism by myself, given at the Pactum Conference 2024 Omaha, Nebraska, with Pat Abendroth and Omaha Bible Church.

So today, you've already heard this if you listen to the Pactum at all, which you should, thepactum .org, but this is the message,.

Legalism and antinomianism. Enjoy. Legalism and antinomianism, two isms that we want to avoid. I'm Pat Abendroth. This is the Pactum. Welcome. Episode 199. And this episode comes to us from the 2024 Pactum Conference, where Mike Abendroth addresses legalism and antinomianism and does an excellent job.

I'm sure you're going to enjoy the episode, but before we actually get into the episode, you can reach out to us. We have a great website at thepactum .org. We're also on xatthepactum. We're on Instagram at thepactumtheology.

You can also email us at connectatthepactum .org. And before we launch the great episode on legalism and antinomianism, reach out, get online, get online and go to heritagebooks .org and get some great stuff.

And if you use the code PACTUM, you will get 10 off. So go check out all the stuff they have. I know they've been promoting and we've been promoting their series called Puritan Treasures, and they're making things accessible.

Things like messages, teachings, writings from John Owen, Jeremiah Burroughs, as well as others. And they've just got a lot of great stuff there. They make it easy to spend too much. That's the only downfall, but we're so thankful that they're sponsoring this episode of The Pactum.

Enjoy legalism, not actually, but the episode, legalism and antinomianism from Mike Abendroth. What do all these have in common? Buzz and Woody,.

Sonny and Cher, Abbott and Costello, Johnny Quest and Haji, Lennon and McCartney, Jagger and Richards, Romeo and Juliet, Tarzan and Jane, Laurel and Hardy, Pat Abendroth and Mike Grimes. They're all famous duos.

And this year and next year, we're talking about a dynamic duo, law and gospel. I love the choice for the conference. Machen said this about the law, a new and more powerful proclamation of the law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour.

Men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they only learned the lesson of the law. So it is always, a low view of the law always brings legalism in religion. A high view of the law makes a man a seeker after grace.

And that's certainly Pat's goal and the elder's goal, having this conference, that you would have a high view of the law. And if you have a high view, to keep it. So this morning, I've been assigned the task, I always get assigned the task of the negative ones.

Last year, final justification. This year, legalism and antinomianism. We're going to look at a theological duo, but it's an infamous theological duo, more infamous infamous than even the sinister duo of Bonnie and Clyde.

We're going to look at legalism and antinomianism. And I am an expert in this topic, because I used to be a legalist and I'm always called an antinomian. So here we go. I wanted to come up with 20 questions, because that's kind of a fun number for our outline today.

But since I was educated in Omaha Public School District, it's true, I was. Master's, Allure Dodge, Master's Elementary School, Morton Junior High, and Omaha Northwest. We're going to kind of have seven questions today for our outline, to help you think rightly about the law.

Seven questions to bolster your thinking, so you're right on biblical point. And then maybe a bonus if we have time. Seven questions with the goal of having you think rightly. You're not supposed to talk about your kids if they do something wrong from the pulpit, but since Luke's here, I'll tell you a story about Luke.

Luke's a pastor and a seminary student at West Cal, and one time I said to Luke, he disobeyed. I said, son, what were you thinking when you did that? And he said, dad, I wasn't thinking. I said, good, that's a good answer.

No discipline for you. Or as my father would say, I don't want you to have any stinking thinking, because he was an Omaha Public School grad too. So right views about the law, seven questions to help you think about it, legalism and antinomian.

Question number one, since God's law is good and reflects God's nature, why are you surprised that there's attacks on God's law? In other words, don't be surprised that there's this controversy. Some Christians say, well, there's this controversy and so many divisions and this, that, and the other.

Why can't we all get along? If God is good and his law is good, and they both are, why are we surprised that Satan attacks God and his law with things like antinomianism and legalism? Since God's law is good, it must come from God, and that's exactly right.

The law isn't out there abstractly floating around in the ether. It represents, as we heard from both Dave and John, it represents God's nature and his character and his essence. And therefore, as we have heard, 1 Timothy 1 .8, we know that the law is good.

And Romans chapter seven, it says the law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good because God is holy, righteous, and good. So if God is attacked, and we know he is, we shouldn't be surprised that the law is attacked because it reveals God's character.

And the two ways it's attacked or torqued or perverted or twisted is legalism, and as you know, antinomianism, anti, against, nom, N-O-M, law. So legalism or antinomianism. Sometimes people call legalism nomism or neo-nomism, and those are the two ways it's torqued.

And generally speaking, we'll look at some flavors later, generally speaking, legalism says we're going to add to Christ's perfect work. Jesus paid it almost all, and I need to add something, right? It's built into our nature and our fabric to want to do something to please God, and so we can't do that.

We're tainted by sin. So legalism says, yes, Jesus did a great job, but I need to add things. And antinomian says, you know what, since Jesus has paid it all, I have no obligation to obey God's moral law.

Sometimes when you hear the word legalism, you think, you know what, that person's legalistic. They don't smoke. They don't drink. They don't watch movies. They don't do those kind of things. Reminds me of the story of the pastor in New England in the winter.

All the roads were blocked. He had to ice skate on the river to get to church, and the elders confronted him because he was skating on the Lord's day, and they had a big powwow, and they finally asked him, did you enjoy it?

And he said no, so the board said it was okay. We're not talking about legalism, can you trick or treat or not? We're talking about adding to the works of Christ Jesus. This is in the realm of justification, Christ plus.

And antinomianism basically says, you know what, Jesus did pay it all, so the obligation to love neighbor, the obligation to love God, we don't have to do that. It's essentially like Galatians 5 says, using your freedom as an opportunity for the what?

The flesh. So I don't want you to be shocked and surprised when theological controversies come up, especially when it talks about the nature of God. Luther, by the way, called people antinomian, and he was called antinomian.

Erasmus said, Luther, you're an antinomian because your doctrine of justification, you want two things out of it, wealth and wives. And so this has been going on, calling people names for a long time.

Question number two, right thinking about the law. Why is this topic, the law and legalism and antinomianism so important? That's question two. Why is it so important? And the answer is because both of these evil, heinous sins denigrate the view that Jesus is glorious.

It's an attack on the person and work of the son that the father sent. Thornwell, the theologian, said the gospel like its blessed master is always crucified between two thieves, legalists of all sorts on one hand and antinomians on the other.

And this is the effect of those two deadly, sinister duos. The one robbing the savior of the glory of his work for us justification, Christ for pardon. And the other thieves rob Jesus of the glory of his work in us, Christ for power in the role of sanctification.

So both take away the glory of Jesus. That's why it's so important. And of course, we don't want to rob Jesus of any glory, especially the father Philippians two has not just exalted Jesus. What's it say before exalted?

He has altogether now highly exalted. The London Baptist Confession said the office of the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake. I mean, this is marvelous, which that he might discharge. He was made under the law and did perfectly fulfill it and underwent the punishment.

Do us being made sin and a curse for us. Crucified, died third day. He rose from the dead, sits in the heavens at the right hand, making intercession the Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself procured, procured reconciliation, purchased everlasting inheritance of the kingdom of heaven.

And it goes on and on and on, basically saying Jesus did everything perfectly obey the law and died for our lawlessness confirmed by the resurrection. Turn to Galatians chapter two, if you would, and I'd remind you that maybe this is the key verse of Galatians.

And just to show you the importance it is to think rightly about Jesus so you don't become a legalist. Galatians chapter two, and it was Machen I think who said this is the key verse. Basically 221 says Jesus all or nothing binary.

He either has everything for you or he does nothing for you. I guess I can say this because I'll try to wake you up. Here's what I would say to the kids when I sing about Romans 11 and how much works do you need to add to grace before you obliterate grace?

We had a dog and probably Saturdays were the days that we would all go pick up things that the dog left in the backyard and I don't mean toys. And I gave the kid gloves and all that stuff. And sometimes we would say as we were making brownies or something, I say to the kids, what's the least amount of what you just picked up?

What's the least amount of that we could put in the brownies and you could still eat them. All right, let's close in prayer. Legalism's bad. And so here's the great work of Christ and we're going to add something.

We're going to somehow contribute it. Like he didn't do enough and what we do even with our sintated hands, we don't want to do that. So Paul says, I do not make void the grace of God for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died in vain.

Another translation, he died for what? No purpose. Why send Jesus to die and to suffer if you can get there on your own? It's all or nothing. Luther said, nothing satisfies the law except the doing and the dying of Christ.

Right? And Antinomian says, you know what? We're free from obligations. Yeah, I know Jesus died for us, but Christ in us, sanctifying us and we respond with killing sin and living for righteousness. No, that's okay.

We don't need to do that. Luther's condemnation of Agricola, that's a guy's last name. Agricola said, I just talked like a New Englander, didn't I? Agricola, there you go. Law and gospel. Agricola said, the 10 commandments belong in the courthouse, not in the pulpit to the gallows with Moses.

That's Antinomianism. So this is important. We want to respond rightly and think rightly because Jesus did accomplish our salvation. You probably know the old song, the Antinomian song, free from the law, oh, blessed condition.

I can sin as I please and still have remission. Turn to Romans chapter six to show you how this ties into the person and work of Christ. Why is the topic important? Because Jesus is important. If you think rightly about him, you're not going to go into either ditch.

Romans chapter six, this whole great section about union. And Paul says, basically, well, I'll just read what he says. Verse one, what should we say then? I mean, there's got to be some response. The truth of free justification by faith alone, by the goodness and grace of God.

What do you say to that? Are we to continue in sin that grace might abound? By no means. How can we who died a sin still live in it? And then he begins to exhole what Jesus did. Verse three, we are baptized into his death.

We're buried with him in verse four. We walk in newness of life, verse four, united with him in verse five. Two times it says that, going on and on. And then in verse 15, what then? Are we to continue in sin?

Are we to sin because we're not under law but under grace? And what's the answer? No possible way. Why is this topic important? Because the person and work of Christ are important. Number three. Okay.

This will be a fun one. Was Jesus accused more of legalism or antinomianism? Jesus is on earth and which one is he accused of more? I wonder what grace incarnate would be accused of more. And the answer is he was never accused of being a legalistic.

He was only accused of being an antinomian. Isn't that interesting? Think through that for just a minute. Go back to Romans chapter six, verse one, as we kind of think through this. Are we to continue in sin the grace might abound?

Now, if you've studied the Bible at all, when you read that verse, which commentator do you think of who made really an excellent comment about the implications of that verse? Who's the guy that was in England and died, I think, in 1980?

And when I think of God is in implications, and then I think who can help me as a Bible teacher understand that. And his name was of course, Martin Lloyd Jones. There you go. Here's what Lloyd Jones says about this verse.

This free grace of God and salvation is always exposed to that charge of antinomianism. If you do not make people say things like that, sometimes if you are not misunderstood and you are not slanderously reported from the standpoint of antinomianism, it is because you do not believe the gospel truly and do not preach it truly.

This gospel of grace, this gospel of forgiveness, this gospel that says your sins are gone from the east, from the west, cast behind your back, this gospel that says in Micah that your sins aren't just kind of thrown overboard, but with God who is not a reluctant giver, but a wonderful forgiver, and he just throws them over.

He hurls them over. If you're not accused of being an antinomian, you didn't preach the gospel rightly. And people can sin, but they shouldn't. You could take advantage of this grace, but you ought not to.

And Jesus, when you think about it, was never accused of being an antinomian. Sinclair Ferguson, in the book that's been referenced here earlier, The Whole Christ, he said that the Pharisees were getting ready to charge Jesus as being, listen, antinomian incarnate.

Think about it. Jesus, Lord of the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath. Jesus having his disciples walking through the grain fields in Luke chapter five, and they're eating those things. Jesus sitting down next to tax collectors and sinners.

Jesus seems like he doesn't care about the Pharisees' laws, so they are calling him antinomian. How dare you go to Zacchaeus' house and eat with him? Okay, here's a good question. Have you, dear Christian, ever been accused of being an antinomian?

If you haven't, do you think maybe your gospel preaching might need to change a little? Because when you preach the gospel, even to an unbeliever, if that unbeliever's smart, he should be saying, or she should be saying, you mean to tell me?

Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean to tell you. Every one of your sins, past, present, and future, you're declared righteous based on the forensic declaration, and you are pronounced just. You mean to tell me that, yeah, but what if I sin?

Do I lose my salvation? You mean to tell me that? Grace is scandalous, and actually, this is just between us girls, as my dad would say. Northwestern Bell employee. Between us girls. I actually love it when people call me an antinomian because I realize I'm preaching the gospel rightly.

What's the solution of this? It's simple. You just keep preaching law and gospel. We don't change. We just keep preaching law and gospel to the unbeliever, law gospel, to the believer, law gospel. Question number four.

All right, here's kind of a fun one. This would be Pactum Worthy. Is legalism worse than antinomianism? Which one's worse, antinomianism or legalism? What do you think? How many people think legalism is worse?

Raise your hand. How many people think antinomianism is worse? If I was a charismatic preacher, I'd say, look to your neighbor and say, legalism is more deadly. We could argue about this because both attack Christ's work.

Christ for us, legalism. Christ in us, antinomianism. Those are attacked like that, but I'm going to give you two reasons why I think legalism is worse. The greatest and severest denunciations by Paul and Jesus are against, which one?

Legalism. Turn to Galatians chapter one, please. I looked up a couple synonyms of attack and I found invectives. I found vituperations. And if you ever speak in the same platform as Vandrunen and Fesco, you have to come up with some big names, big words.

I mean, is there anything like this in the Bible? And it's against legalism, adding to Christ's work. Verse six of Galatians one, I'm astonished you're so quickly deserting. You're going AWOL against him who called you in the name of the grace of Christ and turning it into a different gospel.

Of course, there isn't another one. Verse eight, but even if we are an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preach to you, you damn him to hell. He is damned to hell.

Let him be accursed. If we have said before and now say again, if anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you receive, let him be accursed. And if you think I'm trying to trying to be impressive in front of you or earn your favor, verse 10, I'm seeking the approval of man or of God.

I'm trying to please man. No, if I was, I would not be a servant of Christ. Now, sometimes we read the greetings too fast. I would submit to you that even in the greeting before these invectives, that there's something to be found by a scholar or those who are trying to understand the Bible.

And it's the third word in Greek, and it's the fourth word in the ESV Galatians one, verse one, the fourth word in English, but the third word in Greek, Greek reads Paul apostle. And what's the next word?

Not, you know, this whole gospel is a gospel that says over my dead body. No way. The church is supposed to be for things, you know, we're, we're, we're known for what we're for and not what we're against.

And Paul says, you know what, Paul, apostle, not, no way you're going to add grace. You're going to add works to legal, to, to, to grace. No, Peter, you're going to run your mouth and say these things.

No, you're going to start off by grace and then sanctify yourself by works. No, no, no, no, no, no. One guy said, I think it was mentioned. Where are the men that say no in a world of yes, men, basically what Paul is doing is say, you know what, we're defining these terms by exclusion.

Think about what Jesus said. He never said this to antinomians, but he said it to the legalist. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites, you shut the kingdom of heaven and people's faces. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, you tithe mint and dill and cumin, but you have neglected the weightier matters of the law.

Jesus never talked like this to antinomians. Woe to you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, you clean out the outside of the cup of the plate, but the inside they're full of greed and indulgence. I would submit to you while both antinomianism and legalism are sinful and wrong, transgressions, perversions, and they need to be repented of.

I think legalism is actually worse. Legalism stands before the law and says, I can keep that, and so we've heard a lot about perfect and personal and perpetual obedience, but since I'm not the scholar like Fesco and those guys, I always say perfect, entire, exact, perpetual obedience, P-E-E-P, because I remember peeps and coming up in Easter time, there's a fluffy little sugary little thing that you get at the checkout counter, they're peeps, and I redeem peeps, so the next time you see peep, you say, before I would stand before God, I have to be perfectly, entirely, exactly, perpetually obedience, and you can make a big deal about it with your kids.

I like to teach kids theological truths. You take two peeps, you put them in the microwave, turn it on, they joust. I'm not kidding. You can put them on pizza, and it's called peepsa, but off we go. It's true.

I read it on wiki. I think legalism's also worse because legalism always and inevitably leads to antinomianism. Wow, you mean legalism leads to lawlessness? Yes. Spurgeon said, I found in my own spiritual life, the more rules I lay down for myself, the more sins I commit.

Listen to what Matthew 15 says. Jesus said to the Pharisees and scribes, when they're stealing their father's and their mother's money to look good, what would you have gained from me as given to God?

That's what you tell people. He'd not honor his father. You're not going to honor your father because you're hiding behind things, and here's what Jesus says. Remember, legalism leads to antinomianism.

Here it is from the words of Jesus. For the sake of your tradition, legalism, you have made void the word of God. So you don't have to obey God because you've added your traditions. Legalism leads to antinomianism.

Ralph Erskine, the marrow man, has been quoted here several times by John. He said the greatest antinomian was actually the greatest legalist. By the way, when people fall, Christian leaders fall, you ought to be asking yourself the question, what leads to antinomianism?

Lots of things, including legalism. Thomas Boston, the antinomian principle that is needless for a man, perfectly justified by faith, to keep the law and to do good works is a glaring evidence that legality is ingrained in the corrupt nature.

Both are sinful, we flee from both, but I personally think legalism is worse. Question number five, what's the simple cure for legalism and antinomianism? Now here's what happens. When we're a legalist and we're adding works to Christ's work, we try to correct that problem, and then what do we do?

We swing over. Or if we're an antinomian, and then we swing over. The cure to antinomianism is not legalism, and the cure to legalism is not thinking about antinomianism. The cure is, and you're going to say that's too simple, but it's true.

The cure is a right view of God, a right view of God. Specifically, as what's been said wonderfully by the men who've spoken before me, not divorcing God and his law, to keep them together. Our father on his deathbed, I remember sitting there talking to him, I think I was 28 years old at the time, January 1989, dying of cancer, 6 '4", 240, shriveling all up, and I just asking him questions on his deathbed, and I said, dad, why didn't you and mom ever celebrate an anniversary?

Never asked him before, everybody else did, our parents didn't, and dad looked at me and he goes, which one? I'm like, which one? Yeah, I acted dumb, I got married, acted dumb, we got divorced, met mom at a party years later, you were conceived that night, and we got married.

I'm like, okay. I'm thinking, how awful must divorce be? No wonder grandma never liked dad. While divorce is awful, divorcing law and the lawgiver is worse. If you think about who God is and his goodness and his kindness and his patience and his forbearance and his long suffering, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness, and then you think about what kind of God that is, what kind of law he would give and for what reason would he give it.

My guess is he would give it for his glory and for your good. Spurgeon said, when I thought God was hard, I found it easy to sin, but when I found God so kind, so good, so overflowing with compassion, I smote on my breast to think that I ever could rebel against a God who loved me so and sought my good.

Those are good words for a deathbed. Those are good words to live by. When you somehow think God is stingy, withholding, if somehow you believe the devil's lie back in Genesis, how could God be so good and hold these things from you, you start to think wrongly about the law.

And so the solution is to think rightly about God. The famous quote by Voss, legalism is a particular kind of submission to God's law that no longer feels the personal divine touch in the rule it submits to.

Union with Christ, the cross, the risen savior, solve the problem. Question number six. Six and seven are warnings. Don't drift into antinomianism, then don't drift into legalism. So let's do antinomianism first.

What kinds of antinomianism can Christians drift into? That's question six. What kind of different strains, kinds, some are worse than others, and there's basically two kinds. Doctrinal, which means you don't think the moral law is abiding today, the validity of the moral law, and practical, ethically how you live that out.

Again, doctrinal antinomianism, no moral law in the place of a believer's life. I can only think of maybe back in the day, 30, 40 years ago, Zane Hodges, easy believism, that might be a doctrinal version.

But most of the time it's practical. And it's sometimes and often egged on by unbelieving false teachers who pervert the grace of God into sensuality and deny our only master and Lord Jesus, that's Jude four.

But let me give you some forms. Here's a form of that you only talk about justification and you never talk about sanctification. Overemphasizing, let me say this, because I don't think you can overemphasize justification, but overemphasizing justification at the expense of sanctification.

I mean, we're free from the law, and now we're free from obligation to it. Another flavor of this is what I call a radical redemptive historical approach to the Bible. Of course, when you read the Bible, you'll see the flow of redemption.

You'll see that the Bible's about Jesus more than it's about us. You're going to see and understand, yes, it's all about who God is, this triune God. But if you never as a teacher, never as a pastor, never as a parent, say in light of that, here's how we respond to God out of gratitude, then there's a problem.

I often tuck the kids in at night, most every night, and I would kind of hold them firmly right here to kind of let them know, Dad's in control, I've got you, you're safe. And then I would sing the little song, Jesus paid it all.

And then I'd stop right there. Of course I wouldn't. I'd say, Jesus paid it all, all to him. You're a better singer than I am. When I was a kid, Mom said, you should be a pastor. But I was at the Lutheran church, and I said, I can't be a Lutheran church pastor because they have to sing all the time.

In peace, let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy. I'm like, I can't sing in front of people. Help peace, defend us all, by grace. Amen. Of course I love historical redemptive. Of course I love justification.

But the way to kind of solve that is, don't forget Ephesians chapter one, two, and three is followed by four, five, and six. Live in a manner worthy of the gospel. The gospel truth is in Christ. Here's the fulcrum, and you want to live out by the grace of God, walking in a manner worthy.

Dennis Johnson calls it connecting the dots. We don't just lay back and let God. I see practical antinomianism come up when you just don't hear from people how bad sin is, and how Christians, by the grace of God, should kill sin.

And they should live to righteousness. God is the sanctifier. I believe in monergistic sanctification. But the response to God's sanctifying work, Christ in us, is to say, I hate sin, I want to kill it.

And I love righteousness, and I like to live for the Lord. And last flavor of antinomianism that I don't want you to fall into, and that is pushing the limits of Christian liberty. Just overdoing it. It's obviously fine to drink.

It's not right to get drunk. And you say, well, Jesus paid for those sins anyway. So we want to be very careful. You, as a Christian, I know you want to obey for three reasons. God has commanded it. God gives you power to obey the Spirit of God.

And because it's glorifying God, and it's good for you. Question seven. What kind of legalism can you drift into if you're not careful? Now, strictly speaking, legalism is adding works to grace, adding works to Christ work.

But these are some kind of flavors. Some are worse than others. Here's a few that I don't want you to drift into. The view that says you keep your standing before God by obeying. Not just earning God's favor initially, but keeping God's favor.

I'm staying a child because I'm obedient. And here's how it happens. God loves me more when I obey. That's bad thinking. That is stinking thinking. You know what? God couldn't love you any more or any less.

And do you know what? God will never stop loving you because as Voss said, he never started. Of course, back in John 17, Jesus talks about the Father's love is his love for the disciples. Don't fall into the second one.

And that is what I call a legal sanctification. Others have called it that too. Nick Batsik has a great article on legalism and antinomianism. I think I got those words from him. And this is basically Galatians chapter three.

I'll just read the first few verses. Oh, foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this. Did you receive the spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the spirit, are you being perfected by the flesh? And so we don't want that. We want to run from that. Here's another thing that we have to run from. It's very subtle.

And that is redefining saving faith. We're so concerned that we'll have false converts, so concerned that we'll have carnal Christians, so concerned that people might be antinomians, that we somehow or another add some legal tendencies into saving faith.

A definition of saving faith in Belgic confession, the only instrument by which we embrace Christ our righteousness, followed by Westminster confession, is thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness.

So if you trace church history, you'll see Rome couldn't stand free grace, hated justification, and they said it's going to lead to loose living. Richard Baxter comes along and he does the exact same thing.

Did you know people do things for reasons? Here's why Baxter did it, among many. He's the chaplain for Cromwell's new model army. Guys who are soldiers said I'm a believer and then they go sleep with prostitutes.

What do we do? So as their antinomian, Baxter says I better solve the problem instead of Christ crucified, Christ for pardon, Christ for power. I'm going to now have to have legal things jammed in. He said, Baxter did, the sincere performance of the great summary, that is love God, love neighbor, is still naturally implied in the conditions of the gospel, of absolute indispensable necessity.

So you've got to have law in the gospel. You've got to bring them together or else people are going to live like hellions. Theologically we call Baxter a kook. That's the Greek word. K-O-O-K. I'm transliterating the Greek.

Love is law. Whenever I drive by a church sign it says love God, love neighbor. That's what we're all about. I just go law. It's a law church. What are we all about? Law. I go oh no. Him we proclaim. How about that?

Colossians 128. That's what we're known for. Here's a subtle form of legalism and it can be found in what people call lordship salvation. Now of course when it's thought of, Mike you don't believe in lordship salvation.

You don't believe Jesus is Lord. Of course I believe Jesus is Lord. That's not what I'm talking about. Let me give you some quotes and you tell me if you think this might have a flavor of legalism. Individuals are saved when they surrender and submit fully to Christ lordship.

Is that true or false? True or false, the gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow him in submissive obedience. Scripture teaches that Christ is Lord of all and the faith he demands involves unconditional surrender.

Surrender to Jesus's lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation. The summons of submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation. Now while my lordship friends, I love it that they say false converts are wrong.

James 2 is true. We want to make sure 1 Corinthians 6, 9 to 11 is true. I like all that stuff and they regularly say many good things. But I want you to know when you are talking to an unbeliever, I don't want you to have anything of a legal tincture in the call to the response to the gospel.

Here's what I mean. When you preach the gospel to an unbeliever, life, death, burial, resurrection, law, gospel, etc. What do you then tell them? And what you tell them tells me about your legal tincture.

Because if you tell them to believe and to receive and to rest, you're telling them look to the object of faith. This is what the bible teaches. This is what the reformation has taught. That's what the Calvinistic tradition has taught.

And if you tell them surrender, submit, yield, treasure, I submit to you in church history that's called Arminianism or Wesleyanism. How much do I have to surrender? You know what the answer would be?

100%. How much do I have to submit? 100%. How much do I have to yield? 100%. How much do I have to treasure? 100%. The focus is more on the person. Are you surrendered versus I believe in this person outside of me.

You can have a little faith, a weak faith, a sinful faith in the right object and be saved. And so guess what? I love to tell people surrender, yield, submit, but I only tell that to Christians. Because that's the category of sanctification.

You tell unbelievers believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. The stress when we say believe is on the object. Faith is receiving and resting. And then lastly, we've got about a minute, final justification talk.

This is a more insidious kind of legalism and that's how many works are necessary to prove one's salvation. Do you have enough on this side? You're saved but do you have enough to get there? William Perkins says second justification is a satanical delusion.

Wow. I just think of Batman, Pow, Zing, Zap. I remember driving to school and we would have to listen to Jimmy Swagger and Chuck Swindoll. But I didn't care because mom said when we got home from school you could watch Batman.

So my theology is basically Jimmy Swagger, Chuck Swindoll and Batman. Sincere obedience to God is a condition of our continuance in the state of justification are not losing it. That's a satanical delusion.